For better or worse, one thing you can generally count on in the console gaming market is that a system you buy on launch day will have the same basic capabilities as the same system bought six years down the line. Even though numerous internal hardware revisions in that time might reduce the component size and lower the production costs, anything designed to work on one configuration of the console would have to work on all the earlier ones as well. But a patent application filed by Microsoft suggests that the company may be looking to release its next Xbox in multiple configurations, each with varying hardware power and capabilities. A patent like this usually wouldn't be so interesting on its own; Microsoft files patents all the time, and most never see the light of day. But this one includes details that are intriguingly similar to those included in the now famous "Xbox 720" leak that came to light last month.

Microsoft's patent for a "Scalable Multimedia Computer System Architecture With QOS [Quality Of Service] Guarantees" describes a design for a game system that is capable of "allowing platform services to scale over time." Those "platform services" include pretty much everything the hardware does besides directly running games—everything from maintaining the basic operating system, handling network traffic, and interpreting inputs to potentially streaming content to nearby tablets or recording TV shows.

A standard console configuration might explicitly devote one entire CPU/GPU combo to handling those basic platform functions, while other processors are dedicated to the game-playing "application" functions. But Microsoft's patent describes a new "communication fabric" framework that would let the system allocate computing resources more flexibly between platform and application tasks concurrently, while also ensuring that the game-playing portion doesn't dip below a certain quality threshold. So the operating system would be able to use as much processing power as it wants, as long as it doesn't interfere with the performance of a game that's running at the same time.

That's important, because it would also let Microsoft design multiple hardware configurations of the same basic game system, all of which run the same games, but some of which allow for additional "platform" features that use the extra hardware power. The patent even hints at this kind of configuration diversity. While "lower cost embodiments" of the system might be forced to share a single GPU between the platform and application systems (theoretically limiting the power of the platform aspects), the patent suggests that subsequent versions of the hardware could provide "more platform services... due to hardware improvements." In other words, as computing standards increase, newer versions of the system would be equipped to provide additional functions, while still running games designed for earlier versions of the hardware.

What might those extra "platform services" entail? How about converting your game console into a general purpose computer? The patent describes one "embodiment" of the design that could be equipped to run "a different general purpose operating system (e.g. Windows)" including "Internet access via a browser, word processing, productivity, content generation and audiovisual applications." In this configuration, the hardware would be able to easily switch between a game-playing mode and "general purpose computer mode," without requiring separate processors for each distinct part.

But the added services don't have to be that elaborate. Other configurations discussed in the patent could be designed to "be operated as a participant in a larger network community" (read: act as a home server), handle basic audio/visual functions (like persistent on-screen chat or streaming music), or make use of a third CPU to speed up storage access times and process complex inputs (read: Kinect) faster and more accurately. Theoretically, the more advanced hardware could even improve the graphical rendering on games designed for earlier configurations.

The "Xbox 720" document that we reported on last month discussed a potential system architecture that was "designed to be scalable in frequency/number of cores," and have a "modular design to facilitate SKU updates later in lifecycle." And while the leak was labeled as "for discussion purposes only," it's dated just a few months before the December 2010 patent filing (the patent application was only published online by the US Patent and Trademark Office late last month, and found by Internet sleuths earlier this week).

Taken together, these documents present an interesting middle way to combine the PC world of constantly upgradeable hardware with the console world of standardized design. While developers would still have a set baseline "quality of service" configuration to aim for with their designs, the console would also be able to evolve to make use of new standards in computing power as time goes on. Combined with some sort of subsidized monthly fee model, which includes regular, cell-phone style upgrades, Microsoft could ensure that its players aren't using obsolete hardware even years after the system launches. With average console lifecycles continuing to increase, it might not be such a bad idea.

Promoted Comments

This isn't quite what the PC does but I'm surprised this isn't patented already.

This is having a game turn to the system and saying "I'm going to hog 60% of system resources. Here are the details." so that the system can efficiently use the remaining 40% for other functions without slowing the game down and make that an 40/60 game/free resources split in a later revision of the console.

The PC's background processes don't prioritize like that unless coded to do so to my knowledge.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

68 Reader Comments

Though this is just a way to release multiple hardware levels to make an affordable entry for some, it really is doing exactly what the PC has done since the beginning of Computer Gaming.

The one thing that the next XBox must have is a switch back to more standardized peripherals. The PS3 amazingly did this with the ease of HDD upgrade and support for many already existing USB HID devices. With the X360's limits to XID, the price for a good racing wheel cost vastly more than one on the PC/PS3 and really limits the appeal of games like Forza IMO.

The reason I wanted a console was I wanted a game appliance. I buy the console, plug it in, buy the game for the console and it works. No playing around with drivers, no playing around with system config, just put the sucker in and play.

I almost skipped this generation because of what they did with patches and what I thought they'd do with DLC (which did turn out to be correct). If things go even further away from the appliance model, what's the point? Plus, with the "no class action" clause in the MS EULA, which didn't have the opt-out that the Sony one did, why should I even think about new hardware when it's the threat of class action that got them to fix the RROD in the first place?

This isn't quite what the PC does but I'm surprised this isn't patented already.

This is having a game turn to the system and saying "I'm going to hog 60% of system resources. Here are the details." so that the system can efficiently use the remaining 40% for other functions without slowing the game down and make that an 40/60 game/free resources split in a later revision of the console.

The PC's background processes don't prioritize like that unless coded to do so to my knowledge.

Reminds me of the 3DO, as that, supposedly, was designed to have a 64-bit upgrade unit to make it a more attractive, long-term, platform. Likewise, the N64 and Saturn both had RAM upgrades.

I'm a little torn on the idea. I like the idea of it being upgradeable, but at the same time in hesitant how that will work long term. Also, what do you do with old upgrade units? I fear it'll produce more e-waste if customers simply throw the old stuff away.

How is this patentable? Prior art could include the SNES and games that have the Super FX chip built in or any of the various action replay carts of old. I would have thought even the various mod chips that can be fitted could also be considered quite similar.

Though this is just a way to release multiple hardware levels to make an affordable entry for some, it really is doing exactly what the PC has done since the beginning of Computer Gaming.

The one thing that the next XBox must have is a switch back to more standardized peripherals. The PS3 amazingly did this with the ease of HDD upgrade and support for many already existing USB HID devices. With the X360's limits to XID, the price for a good racing wheel cost vastly more than one on the PC/PS3 and really limits the appeal of games like Forza IMO.

We will see how this pan’s out I guess.

More of a GPC...you can expand it to General Purpose Console or Gaming PC as is your preference....

Perhaps they will allow you to use your slate as a keyboard and "trackpad" for interacting with this revolutionary new device?

I already have a pc thanks, and I do not really feel like having to upgrade my console also. I rememeber having a 3DO(did anyone else?) and the talk of the M2 upgrade.Of course 3DO died and Matsushita\Panasonic bought the M2 hardware.

Reminds me of the 3DO, as that, supposedly, was designed to have a 64-bit upgrade unit to make it a more attractive, long-term, platform. Likewise, the N64 and Saturn both had RAM upgrades.

I'm a little torn on the idea. I like the idea of it being upgradeable, but at the same time in hesitant how that will work long term. Also, what do you do with old upgrade units? I fear it'll produce more e-waste if customers simply throw the old stuff away.

That was the M2, I did not see your post and posted further down about the same thing.

Rereading the article, its not for the games themselves? So, gameplay stays the same, but non-gaming features could increase? Hmmm... A console would make a reasonable home server, I guess. Turn it into a DVR. VOIP/video chat. Stream to home devices (phones, tablets). Maybe function as a local game server for LAN play. Add new hardware/standard support like Bluetooth or wireless USB.

I can see some potential here. I could see specific upgrades for ISPs, cable/satellite TV companies, etc., to make the console more useful (and thus subsidizable) to the various industries.

This isn't quite what the PC does but I'm surprised this isn't patented already.

This is having a game turn to the system and saying "I'm going to hog 60% of system resources. Here are the details." so that the system can efficiently use the remaining 40% for other functions without slowing the game down and make that an 40/60 game/free resources split in a later revision of the console.

The PC's background processes don't prioritize like that unless coded to do so to my knowledge.

You can set priorities, which the scheduler will obey. Most OS's dynamically weight processes based on how active they have been recently. This is more like an old school strict priority scheduler:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling_(computing)#Overview

As you can see, there are pro's and cons to every design choice, maybe less so in a console when you really only care about the game anyway. This is still old technology, and I don't think that is what they are doing. I think they are trying to make something similar to DLC in hardware. Basically come up with a scheme for more flat revenue streams.

I understand that Microsoft does have a sizeable fanbase and large numbers of technically oriented supporters, but people buy PCs if they want variable power and customization for games. People want simple appliances that you plugin and just work for consoles. I guess if any company has an idea, they immediately patent it for ammunition, but I hope this doesn't make its way into an actual product. It's bad enough there's 14 versions of Windows that you currently have to choose through.

This isn't quite what the PC does but I'm surprised this isn't patented already.

This is having a game turn to the system and saying "I'm going to hog 60% of system resources. Here are the details." so that the system can efficiently use the remaining 40% for other functions without slowing the game down and make that an 40/60 game/free resources split in a later revision of the console.

The PC's background processes don't prioritize like that unless coded to do so to my knowledge.

Actually, I'm interpreting it more as a "computing resource Quality Of Service". Programs don't usually know things like "I'm going to need 60% of the system resources" in advance. Especially in reference to things like CPU/GPU time.

This seems to be more an approach to allow: "as long as the running game doesn't slow down much give some spare CPU cycles to recording this Seinfeld repeat"

Imagine if they made a 3g/4g wireless internet add-on? Sure, data caps suck, but the 720 almost assuredly will have IE10. Someone with modest usage could use feasibly "cut the cord" that way. Not everyone will be streaming Netflix regularly or downloading massive files, so itd be fine for email, Facebook, etc.

I often wondered about a similar approach, adding the ability to upgrade. Imagine a "base console" that is guaranteed to play ALL titles at 720p. Sell it for $99. Now offer upgradable components that would add performance, like say at 1080p with AA, etc. Add an SSD and more RAM for fastest load times, offer monitor, mouse, and keyboard support (and make users compete against similar configs online). People could gradually improve the console, or at least tailor it for their demands. I know that this sounds very similar to PC gaming, except this would have certified upgrades and an enforcement of base compatibility. It would likely get faster adoption than $400-600 initial expenses like last round.

I wonder if this is why Microsoft introduced that 2-year subsidized cost? I can imagine them offering a plan where for the 2 years you're covered under the plan, you get free (or heavily reduced) hardware upgrades when you take your device into a Best Buy, or a Microsoft Store or a whatever.

How is this patentable? Prior art could include the SNES and games that have the Super FX chip built in or any of the various action replay carts of old. I would have thought even the various mod chips that can be fitted could also be considered quite similar.

No, prior art would be how an iPhone 4S with 2x as many CPU and CPU cores at 2.5x the clock and an additional 20% per core performance improvement can still run the same game as the original iPhone, while in the background process push notifications, downloading email, running a GPS app, and check the calendar/remainders without a drop in performance.

They were already doing something like this to a limited extent with its USB connectivity. Add on an HD-DVD drive and get an HD-DVD player. Add on a WiFi dongle and get WiFi connectivity to your console. Add a Kinect sensor and get motion tracking and voice control, and be able to video chat online with your friends. All the while, your gameplay experience is unchanged.

They're probably thinking that while doing that was useful, expanding it to allow upgrading the internals would be even better. This would allow extending the basic capabilities even further. We know that they ran into some hard limitations when introducing Kinect because a lot of software processing was necessary to interpret the inputs from the various cameras and microphones, and make it useful for games and other apps. This took up valuable CPU cycles that otherwise would have been used for the game, thereby reducing the maximum complexity developers could build into the game itself, and also introducing undesirables like input lag. This kind of an upgrade cycle would allow them to even upgrade core components like the CPU and GPU so that they can allocate additional resources to things like Kinect processing, while allowing even more resources to be allocated to the game itself. If future products like Kinect come down the line with the Xbox 720, this will mean Microsoft will be able to sidestep the horsepower issue that they encountered with the 360.

So long as developers can still code their games and not have to worry about optimizations and other programming tricks (the real benefit of having a console) ceasing to work after an upgrade completes, this can only be a good thing.

Well, except it means Microsoft can monetize the console even more throughout its entire life. And it means they can extend the life of the console even longer than what we've seen in this generation. Which could be a bad thing, based on your perspective.

I suppose this makes this rumor a toss-up for me, in whether or not I think it's a good thing.

Rereading the article, its not for the games themselves? So, gameplay stays the same, but non-gaming features could increase? Hmmm... A console would make a reasonable home server, I guess. Turn it into a DVR. VOIP/video chat. Stream to home devices (phones, tablets). Maybe function as a local game server for LAN play. Add new hardware/standard support like Bluetooth or wireless USB.

I can see some potential here. I could see specific upgrades for ISPs, cable/satellite TV companies, etc., to make the console more useful (and thus subsidizable) to the various industries.

That is how I read it, except going through the patents it also seems to open the door for a basic system (lets call it Loop), then the gaming platform (lets call it Durango), and the services could be scaled over time, so if a VoIP+DVR model could be launched with the core intact. It possible opens the door for scaling on the other ends as well ... that plus cloud gaming could make this the last Xbox as everything after such would be platform extensions. This could allow MS to push a very low end model out but also have a continuous stream every couple years of feature-added units.

This is for enabling multiple SKUs with different core hardware. Right now, the only thing they can do with different SKUs is maybe add or remove storage and USB ports; the CPU/GPU can never change, because games depend on a stable, constant CPU/GPU combo.

This patent will describes a method for them to change the CPU/GPU at will, while only allowing games to see and use a guaranteed baseline CPU/GPU configuration. The leftover headroom can then be used for system/background tasks.

The goal is for them to be able to offer multiple SKUs--one that records TV, one that has a DLNA server, maybe even one that provides multi-screen capability--while making sure that any additional processing that happens never impacts games. Each separate SKU would have different CPU/GPU configurations to allow for different capabilities--a theoretical "dual-screen" console would have twice the CPU/GPU of the "standard" model, but it would set aside a portion of the CPU/GPU equal to the base configuration for the game to run in.

QoS guarantees aren't new! 15-20 years ago, I was developing a concept for a new real-time operating system that would offer a QoS spec. by default for every function-call. One day, operating systems will work this way.

Quote:

one thing you can generally count on in the console gaming market is that a system you buy on launch day will have the same basic capabilities as the same system bought six years down the line

That's basically what the "360" part means: rotate one full cycle and you're back where you started!We're now about to get the "upgrade" on that concept...

I often wondered about a similar approach, adding the ability to upgrade. Imagine a "base console" that is guaranteed to play ALL titles at 720p. Sell it for $99. Now offer upgradable components that would add performance, like say at 1080p with AA, etc. Add an SSD and more RAM for fastest load times, offer monitor, mouse, and keyboard support (and make users compete against similar configs online). People could gradually improve the console, or at least tailor it for their demands. I know that this sounds very similar to PC gaming, except this would have certified upgrades and an enforcement of base compatibility. It would likely get faster adoption than $400-600 initial expenses like last round.

Thank you for making this point! A lot of posters are saying: "We already have this, it's called PC Gaming." I couldn't disagree more. This concept adds the ability to upgrade, but the key benefit here is that there is an enforced "base compatibility". From a developer's point of view this is critical, as it allows them to create games that are optimized to run on the "base compatible" platform...no need to optimize for a hundred different graphics cards/drivers.

It will be very interesting to see how this concept pans out...if it is real. I have often felt that it's a shame to have this very powerful Xbox/PS3 sitting here just for games, when it's system power could do other functions for me.

So instead of coming out with a new console every 5 years, they'll come out with a cheap one to get early buy-in, then crank out some upgrades every year which cost a hefty sum, but which all the developers will target with the next year's game...so , if you still wnt to be able to use your console to play the newer games each year, you'll have to keep sinking $200+ in it every year.

This sounds like the "game playing" part of the console will effectively never change. Whatever improved hardware later versions get, what the console dedicates to actual gaming will stay the same - but there will be more left over to do other "services."

It's an interesting idea, but seems pointless from the point of view "I buy my game machine to play games. My PC/tablet/whatever is for doing that other stuff." If the console's gaming capabilities change over time, it's a bad idea because it's losing that "single system configuration" that is the basic advantage of a console. Later versions might have more stuff built in, but I'd prefer later versions cost less. I also resist integrating multiple separate devices when possible, since when one breaks or becomes outdated, the whole thing needs replacing.

Of course, from MS' view it's a plus. They get to have a machine in the living room that's expandable and can take over more and more of what you do, that "one Microsoft box to rule them all." And instead of the price dropping, they have an excuse to keep the price at $300 - "see, it does more now."

Upgrades on consoles don't work. The golden rule of console hardware is that anything that doesn't come standard on the system will be ignored by developers, because developers are only interested in targeting the broadest userbase.

Pretty much all past examples of upgrades/accessories on consoles have only had very few games made for them. The N64 memory expansion, the 32X, the CD add-ons on most 16-bit consoles, the Wii motionplus, PS Move, etc.

Kinect has sold well, but even that barely has got any good games made for it.

The only successful example of upgrade were the add-on chips in NES and SNES games, but that was because they were part of the games themselves and required no additional purchase. With games being now either on optical discs or online distribution, that option is now long gone.

The only successful example of upgrade were the add-on chips in NES and SNES games, but that was because they were part of the games themselves and required no additional purchase. With games being now either on optical discs or online distribution, that option is now long gone.

Not only, N64 rumblepacks worked with most of the games that came out after they were released.

Upgrades on consoles don't work. The golden rule of console hardware is that anything that doesn't come standard on the system will be ignored by developers, because developers are only interested in targeting the broadest userbase.

Pretty much all past examples of upgrades/accessories on consoles have only had very few games made for them. The N64 memory expansion, the 32X, the CD add-ons on most 16-bit consoles, the Wii motionplus, PS Move, etc.

Kinect has sold well, but even that barely has got any good games made for it.

The only successful example of upgrade were the add-on chips in NES and SNES games, but that was because they were part of the games themselves and required no additional purchase. With games being now either on optical discs or online distribution, that option is now long gone.

I think it has to be part of the SDK. The developer follows the basic guidelines for building the game, and the console will decide at what quality to run it based on the upgrades. They can't offer quality sliders in game, since the user could ruin it by running settings beyond the hardware.

It's probably a pipe dream, I know. Still, things might need to change considerably for the next round. What started as a pop-in-disc-and-play industry is now considerably more diverse.